We first brought this issue to light several years ago, urging stronger safeguards to protect children from explicit, graphic and pornographic books, comics and other harmful publications.
Recognising the validity of our concerns, the department acknowledged the problem and is working to reform the classification system for these materials.
During this session with the Classification Board, I raised the proposed update to Australia’s classification scheme to transition from MA 15+ to MA 16+, noting that aligning this age limit with an under-16 social media ban makes sense for consistency.
I questioned whether the intent of the MA 16+ proposal is to legally block children under 16 from accessing this material in retail stores, libraries, or online – using the book ‘Welcome to Sex’ as an example.
Officials clarified that the current public consultation (which closed May 29) is focused on changing the age limit from 15 to 16 for games, films and publications and does not guarantee that children under 16 will be completely barred from accessing them. Ms Vandenbroek noted that MA-rated content can typically still be accessed with parental consent and library/retail restrictions largely fall under state and territory jurisdiction.
Mr Mackay added that any final scheme changes will require a decision by the federal government alongside unanimous agreement from all states and territories.
I expressed frustration over the slow pace of the process and asked the department when legislation would be introduced. Mr Cole confirmed that no official commitment has been made yet, as they are still awaiting the conclusion of the consultation and subsequent government and state/territory decisions.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I have very simple questions and they’re very short too. In the last Senate estimates session, ACMA suggested I should ask these questions here. Your review into modernising Australia’s classification scheme has moved on slowly to this draft proposal. I note the need for something in printed publications rated between G and R is still accepted. I thank the department and ACMA for that. The new classification applying to all content, including publications, is MA 16+. This harmonises with the under-16 social media ban and other measures of maturity, so I agree with making the ages consistent. My question is: can you confirm that the MA 16+ classification is intended to ensure that no child under 16 can access this material in a retail environment, in a library or through an online purchase?
Mr Betts: Chair, for your benefit, this is not a corporate question. But I understand that Senator Roberts has many commitments during the course of the day, so we will answer this question, noting that it is probably part of outcome 5.
CHAIR: It may not be to do with Senator Roberts’ commitments. From what he said in the preamble, it may be that ACMA suggested it be asked somewhere else. But if we are able to answer it now, that would be wonderful. Senator Green: Yes. It’s under the next outcome, but we can answer it.
Mr Mackay: It is a question for the department, but it does come under outcome 5.
Senator ROBERTS: We were both right.
Senator Green: Column A, column B.
Senator ROBERTS: Or both wrong.
Mr Mackay: Would you mind repeating the last part of the question?
Senator ROBERTS: Can you please confirm that the MA 16+ classification is intended to ensure that no child under 16 can access this material in a retail environment, in a library or through an online purchase?
Mr Cole: No, we’re consulting on that at the moment. We are open for consultation on the update to the guidelines and they will close this Friday 29 May. There have been recommendations by our external provider we had come in to do some work on that. They’ve made recommendations with regard to MA 16+, as you talked about before, but they’re open for classification. Sorry for consultation at the moment to work through whether we should introduce those. So it’s a consultation period.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Let me clarify. The intent behind the proposal as it stands now, subject to consultation, is that no child under 16 can access this material in a retail environment, library or online purchase if it’s accepted?
Mr Cole: Can you repeat the question?
Senator ROBERTS: What you’re saying is that you cannot confirm it at the moment, because it’s still a proposal and you’re seeking consultation?
Mr Cole: That is with regard to the introduction of 16.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the driver behind the introduction to make it so that no child under 16 can access the material in a retail environment, library or online purchase?
Mr Cole: That’s not what’s being proposed at the moment.
Senator ROBERTS: What is being proposed?
Mr Cole: Some recommendations have been proposed that are outlined in the report that you talked about there. There has been discussion around the MA 15+ changing to MA 16+. That would include not just publications but films, games—what’s actually there now. That’s what’s being proposed through the consultation process. But what would be taken from there would be a decision of government.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Is the intent that a child under 16 cannot access this material in a retail environment?
Mr Cole: Not at this stage. Again, it’s a public consultation process.
Senator ROBERTS: No, I understand that. Given that it’s subject to public consultation, I accept that. That’s beneficial. Is the aim of this at the moment that, if it goes through as is, no child under 16 can access this material in a retail environment, a library or online purchase?
Mr Cole: No, that’s not what’s being proposed.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the intent?
Mr Cole: The intent with regard to changing from MA 15+ to MA 16+ is changing the age limits of the way people can access that material, whether it be games, publications or films.
Senator ROBERTS: Under this proposal, if it survives public scrutiny—consultation—could a child legally get their hands on a copy of books like Welcome to Sex?
Mr Cole: I can’t answer questions for the way that libraries, state governments et cetera provide publications. That’s not a federal government decision, so I’m unable to answer that.
Ms Vandenbroek: At the moment, for example, for films that are rated MA 15+, people under the age of 15—correct me if I’m wrong—are able to view those films with their parents’ consent. So it’s not that they can’t legally see it, but they do need their parents’ agreement. That would be what would happen for films.
Senator ROBERTS: What about libraries? How do we protect kids?
Ms Vandenbroek: Very few publications are actually classified. It’s only if they’re called in for classification. Because of the volume, it’s not feasible to classify all written publications. If a book were to be classified currently as MA 15+, it would then be a matter for the library or the bookstore to deal with how that is displayed and how access is restricted.
Senator ROBERTS: So children could still get access to this material?
Mr Mackay: As my colleague indicated, that really is a question for state and territory governments. Following the consultation that is underway at present, any changes to the scheme would require unanimous state and territory agreement, given the issues we’ve been discussing for any changes to the guidelines or to the national code, and that’s a step that would follow from the consultation process that’s on foot at present.
Senator ROBERTS: You proposed a PG 13 classification? Is that correct?
Mr Cole: A PG 13 classification has been consulted on. That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve gone back out for further consultation, as we’ve discussed?
Mr Cole: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: When will this legislation come before parliament? The process is taking too long. We’re not saying don’t have consultation—we believe in that—but it’s taken such a long time. When will it come before parliament?
Mr Cole: There hasn’t been a commitment by government to introduce legislation. At the moment, we’re going through the consultation process for the update to the guidelines. That concludes at the end of this week. Then the findings will be considered and provided to government, and how that’s taken forward will be a decision of government. As Mr Mackay mentioned, any changes have to be unanimously agreed by states and territories, so any changes that are proposed would still then need to go through that process agreed by states and territories before anything could progress.
I questioned representatives from Screen Australia regarding their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) agenda. DEI requirements are not mandated by legislation or the Screen Australia Act, instead they are management-driven KPIs.
I challenged their Gender Matters and inclusion targets, which aims for at least 50% female and non-binary representation in key creative roles, arguing that exceeding 50% disadvantages more meritorious men and ignores true merit-based selection.
Taxpayers are contributing $86 million in the 2026-27 budget, yet Screen Australia’s recoupment of equity investments remains low (ranging from 12% to 32%), indicating poor commercial performance.
I pointed out that overall audience numbers have dropped significantly since 2021-22, questioning whether their focus on ideological targets is failing to deliver what audiences actually want to watch while giving taxpayers less value for money.
One Nation will dismantle government-backed DEI initiatives and equity-focused programs that divide rather than unite, ensuring all citizens are treated equally under the law based strictly on merit.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. My questions go to the DEI agenda of Screen Australia. A producer that used a polite Facebook post to raise the gender imbalance in favour of women in your approved productions and in your management was blocked. These questions are apparently not allowed. Happily, you can’t block me, so we’ll ask some questions. From your corporate plan 2023-27: Screen Australia’s funding guidelines include an Inclusive Storytelling Statement that highlights our commitment to diversity equity and inclusion. The agency has developed a series of programs to provide skills development opportunities for diverse practitioners traditionally under-represented in the Australian screen industry … Screen Australia also has a long-standing commitment to gender equity through its Gender Matters program and KPI. Can you show me where in your enabling legislation this DEI requirement was mandated, or is this a decision taken by the management, the board, the government, the minister, KPIs?
Ms Brunsdon: The screen sector in Australia and globally has traditionally been very white and male. The population in Australia is slightly more than 50 per cent women. That’s not the case in terms of the representation in the screen sector. There are generally equal numbers of men and women in film schools who finish those studies, but they’re then not represented and their stories don’t get told, and stories from a female perspective are not always told. Stories from culturally diverse parts of the country are not always told. Our research tells us that Australian audiences value authentic representation of Australian stories, and that goes right across the community. A lot of the research we’ve done on seeing ourselves, which goes into the representation of parts of the community on screen and behind the screen, tells us that there are parts of the community that are very severely underrepresented, including people with disability, where one in five people in the community identify as having a disability but we don’t see that on screen. We do have programs, like most of the state screen agencies, to develop new stories from different parts of the community. They’re stories that travel. They’re stories that get audiences in Australia and internationally, and that’s one of the reasons that we do that. People like to see themselves, their experiences and their lives reflected in the stories they watch on screen, whether that’s on TV or whether it’s in cinema. The Gender Matters taskforce has been disbanded. The corporate plan that you mentioned has been updated, and we released a new corporate plan last year in April. Our purpose is about supporting a vibrant and viable screen industry that reflects the diversity of stories and the depth of stories from across Australia. So we’re just working with and trying to reflect the community of Australia in the stories that get supported and that get shown.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I didn’t ask you to justify your following of DEI. I just wanted to know if your enabling legislation requires DEI—if it was mandated—or if it’s a decision taken by the management, the board, the minister or the government? Who set your KPIs on this, you or the government?
Ms Brunsdon: We set the KPIs.
Senator ROBERTS: So who set the DEI requirement? Was it mandated?
Ms Brunsdon: There isn’t a DEI requirement mandated, but the functions of Screen Australia under the Screen Australia Act are to support and promote the development of a highly creative, innovative and commercially sustainable Australian screen production industry and support the development, production, promotion and distribution of Australian programs and the provision of access to Australian programs to support the development of screen culture in Australia and undertake any other function conferred on it by the law of the Commonwealth. There are a number of ways that we do that. We’re also required to place an emphasis on documentaries and programs of interest or relevance to children and programs with a high level of artistic and cultural merit, promote the open market as the primary means of support for projects with commercial potential, promote the development of commercially focused screen production businesses and promote the effective, efficient and ethical use of public resources. There’s no DEI component in there. We interpret reflecting these stories to ensure that there is a diversity of stories on screen.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me, on notice, your evidence from your research that says DEI improves your capability in all those areas?
Ms Brunsdon: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you—and any peer reviewed scientific studies would be appreciated as well. It seems that you’re setting them In looking at your KPIs, the first KPI for 2016-19, at least 50 per cent of production funded projects are to have women in more than 50 per cent of key creative roles. This was achieved at 56 per cent. Is your KPI really ‘at least’ 50 per cent? Surely anything above 50 per cent means less meritorious women are being favoured over more meritorious men. Surely the merit ratio is 50 to 50—or, in your universe, are women better than men?
Ms Brunsdon: Are women better than men? It’s a KPI that we measure over three years, so it’s not that every project has to have women in key creative roles. It’s over the breadth of the projects that we support that we are aiming for that target. And it’s a target; it’s not a rule. It’s something that moves depending on the projects that come in and depending on the creatives already attached to those projects. It’s a target that’s harder to achieve in feature films because they often come with a writer-director from their origination. A lot of TV series that come to us don’t necessarily have all their directors attached, so there’s room for things to move at those times. So it really depends on everything. The population isn’t quite fifty-fifty.
Senator ROBERTS: Slightly more females.
Ms Brunsdon: Slightly more females. That target is about the representation of women relevant to the population and to the community.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you done any work on why that used to be lower? There are some amazing female producers, directors, actresses—or actors, whatever you want to call them these days. In the past, surely for commercial interest, people would have wanted to jump on to make sure that women were involved. They provide a more varied and diverse approach. So why were they underrepresented?
Ms Brunsdon: For a variety of reasons—in the same way that they’re underrepresented in many parts of the economy and many parts of the sector and, indeed, leadership positions more broadly. A lot of women take time out to have children or have other caring responsibilities. It can be more difficult to get back into the sector if you’ve taken time out for those caring responsibilities. That’s certainly one thing. There are a number of research papers that detail this. People find it more difficult to get jobs when they have children because of the hours that this industry takes when you’ve got a project in production. So there are a number of barriers there for people to do that. We’ve recently done some research looking at different methodologies for production—that might be a nine-day fortnight or shorter working hours or eight-hour days and that kind of thing—to try and encourage better working hours for everybody. It’s not just for women or people with caring responsibilities but actually for the whole workforce.
Senator ROBERTS: I think most people would agree from their own experience—it’s not just me—that women are generally better carers. Most families make the decision that their children will be cared for by one of the partners if they can afford it, and that’s increasingly unlikely, sadly, these days, but generally that’s the woman because women are better carers.
Ms Brunsdon: I couldn’t comment.
Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t fishing. The second KPI from 2019 to 2023 was ‘more than or equal to 50 per cent of key creative roles across development and production held by women’. That was achieved at 55 per cent. Again, tough luck men, because this is all about the women, right?
Ms Brunsdon: Well, the KPI is about female representation, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Having achieved the earlier targets, rather than holding them there and looking for projects with merit, you increased the targets. For 2023 to 2026, the KPI requires the female mandate to be expanded to include non-binary, gender-diverse people for a target of more than 50 per cent of key roles of writer, producer or director across funded projects for a three-year average. Is women at 50 per cent a hard floor? Is bringing in transgenders, men living as women, taking jobs off women, or is ‘transgender’ a new protected class to add on top of the 50 per cent reserved for women?
Ms Brunsdon: No, it’s not. The 50 per cent is for women and/or non-binary or gender-diverse people. So it’s an inclusive target of 50 per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: So it should be 50 per cent or more?
Ms Brunsdon: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: You must be treating it as additional because the latest data shows that female and trans et cetera producers are now at 62 per cent, writers are up to 55 per cent and directors are still down at 49 per cent—almost 50. Apparently, that’s not close to being equal. Overall, it is 56 per cent across all KPIs. Are you going to stop now and start approving projects on merit again?
Ms Brunsdon: We do approve projects on merit. That’s absolutely the very first thing. The target is about tracking the projects in terms of who the key creatives are and making sure that we’ve got that information as we’re going through the year. The results of the target also change every year depending on the projects that come to us. Because we don’t commission projects, we can only respond to the applications that we receive.
Senator ROBERTS: ‘Merit’, do you say? Well, it’s not really, is it? Because there’s a line item in your account for ‘recoupment of equity investment’, REI, which is taxpayers getting a return on our money. If your investment decisions were being made on merit, your commercial returns would show that. I note your returns over the last six years on recoupment of equity investment have ranged from 12 to 32 per cent. Some variation may occur as costs are in one year and returns are in another, so we understand that. Your numbers may be more accurate. Why did the projects you fund fail commercially so frequently? Even when you’ve had a hit, the best year was only 32 per cent of your money back.
Ms Brunsdon: It really depends on the projects, and they’re subject, obviously, to global headwinds and the contraction in the global marketplace for screen content. It depends on the box office, if they’re theatrical feature films in Australia, and it depends how well they sell internationally. Over the last couple of years, it’s become much more difficult for projects to sell, certainly into the US, which used to be a much more stable market, certainly for Australian content. It can’t be relied on because of the contraction of some of the big media players there. It’s very much subject to market conditions, and the market has changed significantly and continues to move fluidly, and that’s not something we have any control over. Some projects do incredibly well. The feature film Talk to Me, which was released a couple of years ago, has recouped many times over what its budget was.
Senator ROBERTS: It was a very good one.
Ms Brunsdon: A very good one. We want more like that. And there are things that perhaps are less commercially focused but still play very well with audiences. There’s a real range of projects that we support and a real range of returns, because the return on investment is not just about the commercial financial return; it’s also a cultural return and an influence return, in terms of whether it is something that’s going to influence people to change their behaviour. There are different reasons that we watch the shows that we watch, that we go to see films that we see, and our reactions to them and our behaviour is a result of that.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand systems change behaviour and language changes behaviour. Could you tell me the behaviours you’re seeking on behalf of the Australian taxpayer?
Ms Brunsdon: We’re not seeking—
Senator ROBERTS: You’re basically changing behaviours, which I understand. So what behaviours are you trying to change?
Ms Brunsdon: We’re not trying to change behaviours. It will depend on the show. There may be documentaries that seek to give people a better understanding of a certain issue or group of people, and to have more empathy around things or just understand their community better.
Senator ROBERTS: Is changing behaviour one of the criteria or one of the KPIs for selecting investment grants?
Ms Brunsdon: No, it’s not.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you do that, then? How do you make sure they change behaviour?
Ms Brunsdon: That’s not something that we can do. We don’t distribute the shows, we don’t market shows and we don’t commission shows.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. A common measure of a hit screen production is one that returns 2.5 times its production cost. Two times breaks even, including distribution, and the 0.5 on top of two is profit. By that measure, your last hit movie was the movie Talk to Me in 2022, which cost $4 million and returned a whopping $140 million. A great result, but it was unexpected for a small horror film. Nonetheless, it was a good result. It made your results for 2023-24 look good. The next previous hits we can see in your returns are: Lion way back in 2016; The Sapphires in 2012; and Red Dog in 2011, which must have been a very big hit. That was a long time ago. Is this move to DEI in more recent years creating projects that people don’t want to watch?
Ms Brunsdon: No.
Senator ROBERTS: In 2024-25, your total audience was 101.8 million; let’s say 102 million. That’s up from last year, but it’s down on 2020-21, and on 2021-22, which was 140 million. So you’re way down—that’s almost one quarter down. I acknowledge that the platforms are changing from theatre to streaming, and now to TikTok. Can you provide an accurate figure for your audience each year over the last five years, broken into screen, television, streaming and social media, please.
Ms Brunsdon: I’ll have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Your 2026-27 budget is $113 million, with $86 million from the taxpayers. What is your projection for grants and for recoupable investments in 2026-27?
Mr Reid: Our budget for 2026-27 is the total expenditure for 2026-27 on page 526 of the Portfolio Budget Statement.
Senator ROBERTS: How much?
Mr Reid: It is $95.9 million in total expenses, and our recoupment budget for 2026-27 is $3.8 million.
Senator ROBERTS: How much from taxpayers?
Mr Reid: From taxpayers, we receive revenue from government of $86 million.
Senator ROBERTS: So that’s the same.
Mr Reid: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ve got figures of grants of $34 million and recoupment of equity investment of $59 million.
Mr Reid: You’d have to point to where you’re—we do do grants and equity investments. For 2026-27 we’re projecting $34 million in grants and $33.6 million in what we call the write-down in impairment of assets. That’s the equity component that we provide to recipients.
Senator ROBERTS: The first figure, we agree on. What was the second figure?
Mr Reid: It’s $34 million and $33.6 million in investments.
Senator ROBERTS: If your primary objective is to fund Australian content, then the figure in your budgets for grants and REIs, inflation adjusted, would go up each year, but it doesn’t. Wages go up every year, but money going back into the industry is down from a high in 2020-21 of $99 million, which is $118 million in today’s dollars, to $86 million this year. Taxpayers are paying more and getting less out of Screen Australia. Why is that?
Mr Reid: I’m not sure that I agree with the premise of your question, but taxpayers are paying less and we are delivering a lot for the Australian public.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you convince me that taxpayers are not paying more and getting less?
Mr Reid: Your own figures were that, in 2021, we were paying out $90 million and now we’re paying out less. But Australian stories are being produced and watched at a very high rate.
Senator ROBERTS: But the figures don’t reflect that—the profit figures and the returns.
Mr Reid: As my colleague mentioned, Screen Australia does not make all of its decisions based on commercial return.
I have used Estimates several times to draw attention to the filth being distributed in libraries, material that targets children and is available to them regardless of age. This includes graphic sex-instruction manuals that most adults would find excessive.
We urgently need an intermediate classification for graphic written publications. We have raised this issue for many years; and while the Classification Board seems to agree, there has been no action for almost two years.
During this estimates session, I questioned the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) on the bureaucrats currently running our classification system. We have three different bodies: ACMA, the Classification Board, and the Classification Review Board, all pointing fingers at each other while inappropriate material continues to be freely available to children.
ACMA admitted in their “Stage 2 reforms” submission that we need to rationalise this mess into one single national regulator. It’s common sense: one body, one set of standards, and actual accountability.
I also asked how these obscene publications could possibly meet “community standards.” The answer? They haven’t done any “community standards” research in years. How can they claim to represent the public if they aren’t even talking to them?
The government says they are “awaiting reports,” yet our children can’t wait.
We need a system that reflects your standards, not the standards of Canberra bureaucrats.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the Australian Communication and Media Authority review of Australian classification regulation written form closed submissions in May 2025. What’s happened since and when will we get an outcome?
Ms Field: I believe that is the work of the department, not the ACMA. We have not published a paper.
Senator ROBERTS: Let me continue, then. ACMA made a submission titled Modernising Australia’s national classification scheme: stage 2 reforms. It was dated 6 June 2024. Your submission calls for a national classification regulator to oversee a reformed classification scheme. Is this in addition to the ACMA, the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board?
Ms O’Loughlin: What we were reflecting on in our submission is that classification is undertaken by a range of different organisations and that there may potentially be benefits of rationalising that, because you have the national Classification Board doing publications and film, you have the Classification Review Board. You also have us who have responsibility for classification and broadcasting. What we were saying is: is there a way of looking at that? Is there any rationalisation that could happen?
Senator ROBERTS: My next question was: that’s a lot of bureaucracy, to have three agencies, which most likely will have the outcome of nobody being responsible. Are you talking about rationalising it from three to one?
Ms O’Loughlin: That’s our proposal.
Senator ROBERTS: One of the duties you suggest for the rationalised body is to conduct community standards research. Community standards are central to the existing Classification Board decision process. Do you do community standards research at the moment?
Ms O’Loughlin: We do from time to time in the broadcasting space, but we were indicating that, if there was a combined organisation, if I can use that term, there would be a requirement to make sure there was community research done across all those different mediums—broadcasting, film, literature—to inform the decisions of that new rationalised body.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you currently doing that with broadcasting? You are saying that it needs to continue so that the new rationalised entity does not drop that community standards research?
Ms O’Loughlin: The body is actually testing what the community standards are rather than only relying on its own judgement.
Senator ROBERTS: Seeing as you do community standards research for broadcasting, can you provide on notice the most recent round of research and the cost to the taxpayers for that process?
Ms O’Loughlin: Certainly. We haven’t done some for some time, but I’m happy to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Could give us the date of when it was done?
Ms O’Loughlin: Certainly.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to see how some obscene sex manuals for children could be considered as meeting community standards. I’m horrified/shocked at a publication called Let’s Talk About It. The title probably should be This is How to Do It. It’s an instruction manual, not an information manual. It’s pornography. I’ve asked many questions in many estimates sessions regarding the failure of the rating system to offer a restricted classification for printed material, something between the existing unclassified and R18-plus such as we have for violent teenage videogames. What’s ACMA’s position on a legally enforceable, mature-age, 15-plus or similar classification for these graphic sex instruction manuals targeted at children?
Ms O’Loughlin: That’s not part of our responsibilities currently; that is a matter for the Classification Board. I would expect that may be something that will be raised in the stage 2 classification review that’s being undertaken by the department. That would be the place for that to be considered.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the government’s opinion or view?
Senator Green: I’ll answer your question by saying that the chair is correct; we did have officials here who are working on a review. They were here a bit earlier. Unfortunately, they can’t answer those questions for you now. Obviously, stage 1 was quite successful. We’re working on stage 2 reforms now. The department has engaged a social research centre and Mendelsons to undertake a functional update of the classification guidelines. The minister awaits the final report from this functional update. Unfortunately, I can’t give you any more information without officials here at the table. As the chair indicated to you as well, the Classification Board itself and the Classification Review Board will be appearing later this evening and can answer questions about specific classifications about which you might be concerned.
Senator ROBERTS: We have to get something done about this.
I raised with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms Raelene Sharpe, the facts of a recent State case in which the sentencing judge stated that a convicted paedophile received a reduced sentence because the offender came from a culture where sexual offences against children were more tolerated.
I asked what the prosecution’s stance would be if such an offence were to come before a Commonwealth court and was informed that a Commonwealth judge would also take cultural factors into account during sentencing.
I found this deeply concerning, as I believe sexual offences against children are among the most serious crimes. In my view, an offender’s cultural background should not diminish the gravity of such offences.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Turning to another case, I’m alarmed by the recent trend in some states to reduce sentences for heinous crimes because of historical cultural experiences. I’ll get to the federal implications here. One recent state case—this is a state case I’m citing— involved a person from overseas who was convicted of child sexual offences and had his sentence reduced because the trial judge felt that, because of his previous exposure to such activity, it would be unfair for him to be severely punished if he believed what he was doing was not seriously wrong. I think that’s horrified a lot of Australians, and constituents have contacted us. Since when has the law reduced sentences simply because the defendant thought it was okay to commit sexual offences against children?
Ms Sharp: I’m not sure that that’s how the law operates; you’ve conflated a number of factors. When a sentence is imposed—I am really speaking about the role of courts here, which is outside my direct operation. When courts are determining what sentence to impose, they consider a whole range of factors. Many of those are set out in the Crimes Act, but some are set out by the common law, by the courts as they develop the law of sentencing over time. Those factors include the personal circumstances of both the victim and the offender.
Senator ROBERTS: A lot of our constituents would be very upset with the decision. They’re telling us they are. They think the judiciary needs to be re-educated, but that’s not for you; I accept that. Can you reassure the Australian public that such a claim would not result in a similar discount if the offence was a Commonwealth one?
Ms Sharp: Senator, I’m not sure precisely what the claim is. I can say that we make submissions to courts about what we think the appropriate sentence is—what we think are the appropriate factors relevant to sentencing, but those factors do include the personal circumstances of an offender. That’s simply the state of the law, and that’s set out in the provisions of the Crimes Act which deal with how sentences are to be imposed in relation to federal offences.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it pretty clear cut that molesting a child, sexually abusing a child, sexually assaulting a child, is exactly that? The law would be pretty clear cut on that, wouldn’t it?
Ms Sharp: Is exactly an offence? Yes, it is an offence.
Senator ROBERTS: And the sentence would be lessened if the male comes from a country where paedophilia is allowed?
Ms Sharp: No. Senator, I’m not sure of the particular details of the case about which you’re speaking. At a general level, at a high level, the personal circumstances of an offender are relevant to determining what the appropriate sentence is for every case. It’s not a question of whether that lessens the gravity of the offence. It’s just one of the factors that go into the mix in determining what is the appropriate sentence for a particular matter.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m at a loss for words. Anyway, thank you very much.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ZrAxvPbJ6jo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-27 18:21:592025-10-27 18:22:07No Excuse for Abuse: Protecting Children Must Come First
Grateful to be able to offer my support to Billboard Chris in person at Parliament House today after the concerning events in Queen Street Mall Brisbane.
As I’ve said many times in Senate speeches and other forums, gender dysphoria should be met with compassion and understanding, not a scalpel or hormone drugs.
Our children need support during adolescence, not automatic affirmation that could lead to irreversible harm. Given that children are not mature enough to consent to treatments that will result in permanent infertility and damage, a total ban on such treatments for anyone under 18 is necessary.
We must protect our children as they navigate this challenging period in their lives.
I stand with Billboard Chris and commend his dedication to ending this abuse of our children.
Above all, free speech and the right to peaceful protest must be safeguarded at all costs.
The evidence is in – protect our children from being given life-changing drugs and surgeries and make a ban on gender affirmation permanent and national, not just for a year.
The pornographic publication – Welcome to Sex – which is aimed at children, was shortlisted for the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards. This book is unclassified, meaning it can be accessed by children of any age, and is found in the children’s section of many libraries.
I asked Creative Australia how this could happen. The answer was disturbing and effectively amounts to a confession that their industry experts and selection panel have become so desensitised to sexual content for children that no one thought teaching young children about sexual techniques—topics that most adults would find inappropriate—was a problem. Instead, it was seen as something that should be encouraged, leading to it being shortlisted for the award.
One Nation is committed to implementing measures that will allow children to be children, protecting them from exposure to adult sexual material before they reach their teenage years.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending today. Who decides which publications are listed in the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards? Is that entirely a decision of Creative Australia, or does the Prime Minister make recommendations?
Mr Collette: It is neither, in fact. It is certainly not either the Prime Minister making recommendations or Creative Australia. We have a robust process. We appoint industry experts to act as adjudicators. We then call for nominations. Then all those books are read. I can’t recall by how many—I can find that out for you—but literally hundreds of books are read over the course of six months. Our selection committee will then choose the shortlist and eventually the winners of each category.
Senator ROBERTS: How many people are on the selection committee?
Mr Collette: I think there are about eight. I’d have to check. I haven’t got that with me.
Senator ROBERTS: Industry experts—that means authors, or publishers, or both?
Mr Collette: It means people with a significant record in the book industry.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the age range for each of the categories young adult and children?
Mr Collette: The young adult range goes from 13 to 19 years.
Senator ROBERTS: And children?
Mr Collette: Under that.
Senator ROBERTS: Everything less than that?
Mr Collette: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: The book Welcome to Sex is unclassified, meaning it’s available for children of any age. The author of the book has stated it’s suitable for eight-year-olds. The book is sold by the publisher without an age guidance. Why was the publication listed under young adult rather than children’s?
Mr Collette: I wasn’t aware of that, Senator. I would have to check that. The entries were assessed by an independent panel of judges with expertise across young adult writing, which is a category for works written for readers, as we said, between 13 and 19. I can tell you the names of the judges. They’ve since been published. The title, as you probably know, has been a bestseller in Australia, widely respected by teachers, psychologists and academic researchers. The title won the 2024 Australian Book Industry Award Book of the Year for Older Children in May 2024.
Senator ROBERTS: What are older children?
Mr Collette: Thirteen to 19. The book is clearly aimed at a teen audience, and the book’s introduction states, ‘Welcome to a book about sex and being a teen.’ I note, too, that Welcome to Sex has now been recommended as an educational resource for young people 14-plus by eSafety Kids, which is a trusted e-safety provider endorsed by the eSafety Commissioner. I’m not aware of the details of the question you’ve asked me. I will certainly investigate it. But there is a lot to recommend the excellence of that book, and indeed it has now been endorsed as a text for older children.
Senator ROBERTS: Older children being teens and 14-plus under the eSafety Commissioner—okay. I think the answer to this is no, but I’ll ask it anyway. Did the Prime Minister or any member of his staff or department make any representation regarding this publication, either for it to be included at all or for it to be included in a particular category?
Mr Collette: No, certainly not.
Senator ROBERTS: I thought so. Can you confirm that it was your decision to list that publication for a Prime Minister’s Literary Award, or was it the committee?
Mr Collette: It was the committee’s decision.
Senator ROBERTS: Who made the decision for the publication not to win? If it’s won so many awards, why didn’t it—
Mr Collette: It would be the committee.
Senator ROBERTS: The book was reprinted with a splash on the cover, ‘Prime Minister’s Literary Award nominee’ and sold many copies based on your endorsement. Did you receive any representation on behalf of the publisher for that work to be included in the awards? I imagine publishers would love the extra sales that result from that recommendation?
Mr Collette: Publishers do love the extra sales. One of the things we’ve done since we took responsibility for the awards was to bring it forward in the calendar year because, as a former publisher myself, I understand that two-thirds of our books are sold in three months before Christmas. So we had publishers, but more importantly booksellers, urging us to announce these awards early because they mean so much to keeping bookshops afloat. So, yes, we did all that. But the entire selection of that book was made by the panel of experts, as was the winner.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/M4FsoKhu4yw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-18 07:51:392024-12-20 11:10:32Pornographic Book for Kids Shortlisted for Prime Minister’s Literary Award
The COVID Inquiry Report highlighted the need for greater transparency in decision-making around pandemics. The same criticism also applies to transgender care. Suppressing critical information has led to physical harm being committed to our children.
Australia must implement a moratorium on irreversible treatments for gender dysphoria and conduct a exhaustive and thorough public review of the science behind these practices.
Our kids deserve care based on data, not by the profits of the medical industry.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/114bf41a4cc14101b71ae6bcaf6fed87.jpg?fit=1000%2C667&ssl=16671000Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-10-31 17:57:082024-10-31 17:57:12Urgent Review Needed on Transgender Care for Children’s Safety
The State Governments constantly come begging to the Commonwealth for money for schools which are State Government responsibility. This money inevitably ends up going towards ‘woke’ agendas, such as those promoted by Queensland Premier Steven Miles.
Drag queen story times, welcome to country and gender affirmation in schools is ridiculous and taxpayers shouldn’t be funding such programs.
I have long called for education to be about the basics: Education NOT Indoctrination!
Transcript
The schooling resource standard, or SRS, estimates the amount of public funding that schools need to meet their students’ educational needs. As of 2024, the Commonwealth is responsible for providing 20 per cent of public schools funding and, in line with this arrangement, states are required to take on 75 per cent, leaving a five per cent gap. The Commonwealth wears extra loadings for medium and small schools, which is estimated to cost the federal government $600 million in 2024 alone, as well as other student based loadings.
This scheme was agreed upon between the federal, state and territory governments under the National School Reform Agreement. Australia is a federation of states, and education is a state responsibility. Not only are the states failing to meet their 75 per cent target; they’re demanding that the federal government tip in more money for an additional five per cent. It is hypocrisy for the Victorian education minister, Ben Carroll, to suggest that the federal government should cut its funding to non-government schools to make up for it. The Commonwealth is already paying its fair share and meeting its target as outlined in the schooling resource standard, and the states are not paying their fair share—their agreed share. The states have even declined the offer of the federal government taking on an additional 2.5 per cent to help in closing the gap. They are asking for the full five per cent. How can the states ask for anything when they’re not even meeting their own target?
It’s worth noting that, in Australia, states and territories are responsible for the majority of public school funding, to which in 2024 alone the Commonwealth government is contributing $11.2 billion. Contrary to union bosses’ claims, the federal government over the past decade has taken on a greater share of the responsibility of funding schools. In fact, in 2013-14, states were responsible for 87 per cent of public school funding. Today that share is 12 per cent lower. It’s not the Commonwealth’s job to make up for the states’ fiscal illiteracy and mismanagement or the states’ pursuit of woke agenda. Look at Steven Miles, the Premier of Queensland. He is driving an agenda that includes gender bending and kiddies talk.
Senator Allman-Payne interjecting—
Senator ROBERTS: Senator Allman-Payne was talking about human relations. This is bending our children. That’s what we’re paying for. We should not be paying for that. Reading kids drag queens’ story times in schools—ridiculous! It’s left to the parent to defend their children and come in and stop it. One Nation stands on the fundamental idea that education is a state responsibility. We support Senator Tyrrell’s matter of public importance, and we thank her for it.
At the same time Prime Minister Albanese is floating a proposal to ban children under 16 on social media, the Victorian ALP is promoting an LGBTIQA+ agenda to children 5 years old and up. This includes using libraries to carry “educational” books like ‘Welcome to Sex’, which are in fact sex instruction manuals.
Additionally, the guidelines promote drag queen story time and involve asking 5-year-olds about their preferred pronouns. Even more concerning, library staff are instructed to actively inquire about the children’s pronouns and even if known, offer them the opportunity to discuss their gender preference. At 5 years of age!
When the Prime Minister talks of keeping children safe, he clearly isn’t talking about keeping them safe from groomers who want to introduce adult concepts to young children in ways that can only lead to confusion.
In this speech, I review the literature on transgender surgery and highlight how this agenda is harming children with no medical benefits.
Transcript
I note that staff in libraries across Victoria have been given a new LGBTQIA+ instruction called the ‘rainbow libraries toolkit’, which requires libraries to ask the gender and pronouns of children as young as five. Five! The Allan Labor government launched the toolkit. It advises library staff that adding books on gender diversity to their collections and promoting the drag queen story events to children will make them more LGBTQIA+ friendly. The toolkit advises library staff not to assume the gender pronouns of primary school age children. The explanation for this is:
It is also important to recognise that, especially for young people, gender identity and sexuality can shift or evolve over time.
Children in particular may want to experiment with different gender expressions through dressing up, and we can support them by avoiding mapping our expectations of gender onto them.
Library staff are told that even if they are “familiar” with a child who visits their library, they should “leave room for them to express a change in their identity”, including by prompting them if they still go by the same pronouns.
Checking in casually about their pronouns (“Do you still prefer he/him pronouns?”‘; “Do you still go by Sam, or is there something else you’d like me to use?”) …
What the hell is going on? When these books—written for children, supposedly—are opened, it’s easy to see that they’re actually instruction manuals for sex. Who puts gender propaganda into libraries for primary school age children to access? Who runs drag queen shows for children? Who talks to children as young as five about their gender identity? Groomers do. The Australian Labor Party does. Who knew that the ‘P’ in ‘ALP’ stands for ‘perverts’?
The inevitable outcome of this childhood grooming will be an increase in gender dysphoria in children, leading to increased pharmaceutical interventions. Here is what we know about the drugs used in gender dysphoria, commonly called puberty blockers. According to the TGA product assessment for leuprolide, the purpose of the approval is for the treatment of cancer. The drug reduces the production of hormones on which cancer feeds—fair enough, for adults. This reduction in hormones causes ‘atrophy of the reproductive organs’. What are the side effects? DAEN case 816594, 26 July 2024, female age nine years: side effects included pain and fat necrosis. Fat necrosis, according to the Cleveland Clinic in America, is the death of fat tissue in the breast or other organs. The damaged fat may be replaced with a cyst or scar tissue—nice! DAEN shows that there have been 42 reports of adverse events from leuprolide among children aged 10 or less. Less than half of the reports include age, so the real figure will be much higher.
This drug cost taxpayers $271 for a low-dose and $1,370 for a high-dose prescription. At a time when taxpayers are struggling with the cost of living, why is the Albanese Labor government choosing to spend taxpayers’ money on this? The propaganda around this very expensive drug is that these changes are not permanent, and the transgender lobby repeat this as a mantra. It’s a lie. The condition that is reversible is precocious puberty, where a child goes into puberty at a very young age. Puberty blockers do indeed prevent that child from going into puberty, until they are removed from the drug, usually at around 11 years of age. The extension of that safety data to any child is the great lie of childhood transgender experimentation. There is no proof that these drugs are safe for a child who is not suffering the raised hormone levels associated with precocious puberty.
This is not my opinion; Britain’s National Health Service has changed their guidance on children and puberty blockers, preventing their use for the gender dysphoria on the basis that: ‘Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria. The effects of bone density in children whose central precocious puberty is arrested with puberty blockers are considered unknown, as they have not been studied.’ Why the hell not? Why are these things handed out like confetti and like candy when we don’t know their long-term health impacts? That is not responsible. It’s criminal. It’s inhumane.
A groundbreaking documentary from the state-run television channel in Sweden has revealed a shocking case of bone damage in one child, Leo. He’s one of 13 children treated at the Karolinska University Hospital who are known to have suffered catastrophic injuries from puberty blockers. Their ailments include liver damage, mental health problems, skeletal damage and a failure to grow. From that investigation:
Leo is in pain most of the time. His back hurts badly when he stands up or walks. It is a hard life for a teenager, and he has no idea if the agony will ever go away.
And:
He has spinal fractures and a condition called osteopenia, which weakens the bones, making them more liable to break. It is a disease that you often see in people aged 60 or 70 and is almost impossible to reverse.’
The overwhelming evidence is that this atrophy, this damage to the reproductive organs of children, is permanent. We are administering this to children under 10, and it’s sterilising them. It’s this evidence that has seen 25 American states ban the pharmaceutical mutilation of children.
Likewise, the transgender lobby will tell you that a cross-gender-identifying child has a greater risk of suicide without puberty blockers. A comprehensive literature review published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society found said there was no statistical signal that suicides increase or decrease from pharmaceutical gender intervention. So, before the Munchausen-by-proxy brigade and the lining-their-pockets brigade come after me, I suggest you take a long, hard look at yourselves. In Senate estimates hearings I asked the TGA if they had conducted safety testing and approved these drugs for use in children, and I was advised they had. I have a motion in the list for tomorrow calling for the release of that data, which is not on the TGA website.
In good conscience, One Nation cannot support the continued harming of our children for a condition that can be treated successfully with counselling and love. One Nation will continue to defend the family and children from the perversions of the Labor Party and, bizarrely, from Victorian librarians.
Tonight I ask whether this Senate can have confidence in the integrity and competency of investigations of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC. It was only a few months ago that the Senate Economics References Committee handed down a scandalous inquiry report which documented how ASIC has comprehensively failed the Australian people. Now further information has come to light which shows ASIC has once again failed to protect everyday Australians. This failure is ASIC’s criminal investigation into a precious metal dealership, ABC Bullion, that occurred between July 2022 and August 2023.
Over the course of 13 months, ASIC spent approximately $300,000 to investigate serious allegations regarding ABC Bullion’s storage services, including whether the physical gold and silver bullion of Australian investors was missing. ASIC closed its investigation on 10 August 2023, stating it would take no further action. This is a decision I disagree with on the basis of information I have at hand, and it’s troubling that current Prime Minister Anthony Albanese took the unprecedented step of holding a national press conference with the directors of ABC Bullion and its parent company, Pallion group, and providing them an explicit personal endorsement. This press conference occurred while the ASIC investigation into possible fraud was underway.
Pallion is Australia’s third-largest private company, and I’m sure that carries weight with ASIC and the office of the Prime Minister. This endorsement was despite the Australian Taxation Office’s highly publicised pursuit of Pallion over the past decade. This tax office investigation cost millions of dollars and covered alleged involvement in an elaborate GST fraud scheme and an illegal phoenixing activity. This saw the tax office succeed in a legal bid to appoint liquidators to the phoenix Pallion group while continuing to pursue the current Pallion entity. The Prime Minister endorsed a company that was under two separate government investigations, from ASIC and the ATO, both of which should rightly have been known to the office of the Prime Minister.
Why would the Prime Minister endorse a company under two government investigations? Recently, independent investigators have found more troubling information about the millions ABC are charging mum-and-dad investors to hold bullion in their secure facility in Marrickville. Firstly, ASIC did not physically inspect any ABC Bullion or Pallion group facility for 9½ months, providing ample opportunity for the Prime Minister’s mates to physically alter the evidence.
Secondly, on 31 July 2022, a mere 3½ weeks after the ASIC investigators tipped off ABC Bullion that it was under investigation, ABC Bullion moved an undisclosed quantity of physical bullion from a tiny room in the Sydney CBD to an industrial building located in Marrickville. This building did not then, and does not now, have a valid occupation certificate, meaning that ABC Bullion and its sister company, Pallion Equipment, have been, under New South Wales law, illegally occupying a building for more than two years. In the past month Inner West Council has officially declared this occupation to be, in their words, ‘unlawful’.
Thirdly, this unlawful occupation was never disclosed to ABC Bullion’s insurers, despite it being required under law. Such nondisclosure provides the insurer with a legal right to void any insurance contract, thus exposing investors to significant risk without their knowledge.
In summary, ASIC investigated the Prime Minister’s mates and gave them a clean bill of health, even though easily identifiable illegal activity was occurring under their nose. (Time expired)
